Simon Fox

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Just too much hot air coming from Simon Fox here!..........Oh, and by the way Mr. Fox, that's DR. The Maltese to you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My abject apologies, your highness. Had I but known you had a title I would never have deigned to question you. Of course I cannot possibly have visited as many memorials as yourself and must therefore remain ignorant and ill-educated. If I had but known of your exalted status, which you have so kindly pointed out to me (at considerable length too), I should never have misinterpreted your intent by drawing a logical conclusion from your comments. No, I should have known that the true meaning of your statements would be hidden from one so unworthy as myself. Obviously it is beyond me to understand that the passing connection one might feel to a well performing set of pixels has a "strong resemblance to the real feeling of losing commrades in war", however you might like to qualify the statement. I apologise too for my presumption in criticising your idol, Rommel. How prescient of you too recognise that I style myself on Monty. Always better to style oneself upon a winner, don't you think?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gyrene: Not trying to mean any disrespect towards catnip (Or even KiwiJoe for that matter) but how can a 5 turn game be termed "very tough"?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I fink that's called 'being polite' or magnanimous in victory. You must be of the "I really kicked your useless arse" school of gloating? In fairness to KiwiJoe he has really set himself up here and quite a few people do seem awfully anxious to see him taken down a peg or two. So far he has conducted himself pretty well with regard to his losses (much as it sticks in my craw to say so about a bludging NZer ) despite a slight tendency to excuses. If any of you drooling lackwits see fit to seize upon the fact that catnip is a woman as being an excuse for any more of the cretinous drivel that has previously occurred in such circumstances, rest assured I'll be chucking another shrimp on my bbq

Franko <-------- what he said. You tell like it was Franko (nice sig btw). Typhoon/8inch shell sheesh! The Cintheaux-Totalize scenario pretty much set's it out quite well. But don't play Germans, play allies, you can roast Wittmann's arse and the AI almost plays it as dumbly as he did that day.

Well if Dorosh is a hair trigger sermoniser then Aitken must be a hair trigger sarcasteriser Every time someone has the temerity to question somefink he leaps up from his bootlicking posture and chimes in with some semi-sarcastic slightly comical flight of fancy. At least if a newbie is involved give them some time to prove themselves worthy of such treatment, or at least able to take it without sooking Then he can trot along to the gang of nuts and squirrels in the Peng thread and posture like some schoolyard bully as how he showed that new boy a thing or two. Like "check this out guys, I gave those questioners of the CM Jihad MG Model a real blast, aren't I funny?". Must be some sort of yearning for group approval thing they've got going in there. So moving on to the topic of this thread. In my opinion both medals and campaign games are unrealistic, I can accept that some people think they would be ?cool? (though I don?t) but I am astonished that maltese uses the "realism" argument to support them. Do you realise how many acts of heroism went unrewarded by medals? Do you realise how many commanders were awarded medals because of the performance of their units? Do you realise that people didn't do these things to obtain medals? Do you realise that they often felt uncomfortable because they might have seen acts equal to their own go "unrewarded" or "unacknowledged"? Do you realise that the awarding of medals sometimes caused resentment in a unit because some may have felt others were more deserving? That said, if CM awards medals fairly on the basis of heroic acts then it is hardly likely to be historically realistic is it? Should national differences be incorporated? The Germans seemed to hand them out left right and centre whereas others (ie Commonwealth) were very reluctant to do so. I do not think you are going to get a reasonable discussion of the campaign game idea in this thread. Because most of those who are against the idea (including BTS) have had their say in the past and are unlikely to waste much effort trotting out the same arguments again. Conversely those who support the idea are happy to chime in with their brief affirmative comments. This is why "do a search" is not a dismissive comment. If you really want to know what BTS and many others have to say on the subject then you really will have to do so. Personally I think campaign games are silly, unrealistic and I wouldn't use them. So how would their inclusion affect me, you ask? I would hate to see BTS waste time developing a campaign style game when they could be working on far more important issues of game play and realism (and I don't think they will anytime soon). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But if you take one moment in any game where you feel a fear of losing your own in-game "life" (which may give you a ever so slight picture of the hell soldiers, sailors, and pilots went through in wars) and you perform some act of courage like landing on Omaha or bringing your single tank's gun to bear on an advancing column of enemy tanks to protect a retreating column of your own soldiers, and then "living" through this incredible act, quite possibly, you may develop a better respect for bravery and self-sacrifice, a lesser respect for cowards, and a better understanding of the horrible reality of war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You may have some sort of problem empathising with the experiences of others and require this "feature" in a game to enable you to do so. Rest assured many of us do not, whether it be reading a book or listening to the Last Post yesterday at the dawn service. It is the height of arrogance to suggest that such a flimsy simulacrum of reality as a computer game can remotely convey the realities of the experience, however vicariously you may wish to feel it. By implication you suggest that people round here may have an inadequate respect for bravery and self-sacrifice or insufficient understanding of the horrible reality of war and require a computer game to teach us such things. Such a comment would be moderately insulting if it weren't so ludicrous. Indeed, from your comments regarding cowards, I would suggest you are more in need of education. Only yesterday a returned digger was relating how he used to literally piss himself with fear every time he saw action, you might think he was a coward, yet he never let his mates down and always did his duty including on one occasion charging a German MG position with a fixed bayonet (related by someone else). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hence, if you're a leader like Rommel (who led from the front), your troops will probably fight better than if you sat in the back watching your men die.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps if you're a section commander or platoon leader this may be true. But if you're a company, battalion or upward commander leading from the front is not only foolhardy but counterproductive and if you are a Army commander like Rommel it is quite silly. What you seem to be yearning for is some kind of FPS type game which CM is not. If there is any personal immersion it is as the commander who sends his troops to do battle not as the individual soldier/gunner/leader. Generally speaking CM does not simulate individuals but units so your suggestions may be more suitably applied to a different game. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Obviously, there is a demand for perhaps creating some grand-campaign function within CM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, there is certainly a demand. I sincerely hope that BTS turn a deaf ear to it until everything else in the game is perfect, he he

Geez, another Kiwi git beating his chest. I thought they were all shipped off to Timor or somefink. Capt wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have argued with Fionn Kelly,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Really? That does make you unique.

I agree with Jeff (oops, did I say that? ). I have often thought that this would make the game more realistic. This is especially applicable to assault type scenarios. I would love to see FOW applied to terrain type too (sorta dynamic terrain hehe), that would really set the cat amongst the pigeons

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by patboivin: Apparently, Witmann's unit in one day knocked out 158 tanks and 132 AT guns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Where was that? Must be Russia or somefink cos it wasn't Villers-Bocage. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>At first he drove parallel to the Allied column, picking off the enemy tanks one at a time, from about 30m away. He kept moving forward, killing the tanks one by one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I would think most of them would have been vehicles other than tanks, halftracks, Bren carriers etc. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>At one point his tank was immobilized by side shot from a PIAT that destroyed a sprocket or drive train(?), so he left it, walked 15km back to SS headquarters, took over a dozen PzIVs back to Villers-Bocage with him, to finish off the rest of the Allied column.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thought it was a 6pdr AT gun that immobilised him? Anyway, yes, he did return and got his arse kicked. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is amazing what a decent tank, good training and experience, and a little determination, will do.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, it is amazing what a decent tank, good training and experience, a lot of determination and the most amazing amount of luck will do. Geez these Villers-Bocage myths just keep on cropping up.

No, at least not when I was playing to win

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I like the proposed CM2 move commands as well. However, I still think that a pinning effect that is exposure-based rather than morale based is a good idea.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I absolutely agree with this. The current implementation means that units with good morale (ie veteran or above, those with a good leader) will persist in dangerous behaviour longer than you might otherwise want them too. Often if you've got a good overwatch situation you just want your point unit to hit the deck and look after themselves.

Well you can target out of los and it can be just as accurate the only bizarre thing about CM is that out of los arty has a different pattern (more like a 'wide' dispersion) which is pretty kooky. It just takes a bit longer to get on target with out of los. One trick is to target the in los field and then just as the barrage is starting shift fire into the forest. There will be a delay but not as bad. Having said all that there are a number of issues regarding the arty model which are regarded as inaccurate by many. Hopefully they will be improved in CM2.

Hello? Earth calling Scout, I noticed you were getting stuck into Pillar again so how about that setup?

How about some sort of pulpit?

Cripes! Going by those figures Mattias I'm gonna have to get one of those demolisher thingies the next time I play allies

In Tank, Ken Tout writes of ranging in on a target for the main gun on his Sherman by firing the coax MG, this was a Brit Sherman in Normandy.

The picture in question is of Australian AT gunners in action at Bakri, Malaya, 18 January 1942. On the morning of 18 January 1942 Japanese tanks advanced along the road towards Bakri, south west Malaya. Here they were fired on by two 2-pdr guns of the 2/4th Australian Anti-Tank Regiment. The Australians destroyed eight tanks and their crews. I have absolutely no doubt that 2pdr HE was produced and available for issue early in the war. IIRC I did see it claimed once that some BEF units in France 1940 were issued with 2pdr HE (I am following that one up). I would concur that it was not widely issued for doctrinal reasons probably because the Brits thought that a HE round of that calibre was largely ineffective and that tanks should use their MGs against infantry. Indirect evidence for its actual use: One of the reasons I have seen cited for the unpopularity of the Littlejohn adaptor for the 2-pdr was the inability to fire the HE round when it was fitted, this suggests the HE round was used. In fact the Brits went so far as to design a Littlejohn HE round, strange but true (source: some crazy obscure ammunition journal ). Many tanks obsolete in the European theatre were not so in the Pacific. The Australians used Matildas and I think valentines too extensively in the Pacific and they had HE for those 2pdrs. There were quite a few different rounds for the 2-pdr by the time we get to the CMBO stage and I often wonder what round BTS are modelling the Brit armoured cars with the "40mm" gun using. Maybe some of the ammo gurus can jump in but I fink there were AP, APCR, APCBC, Littlejohn (MkI & II) at least and also of course HE and maybe APHE? or APCBCHE? That site (http://www.miniatures.de/html/int/shellsB.html} seems to have a few mistakes. "no HE for the 6pdr" ?!

Why is it that whenever this topic crops up (a lot) I get a mental picture of a congaline of troops ------------------ "Stand to your glasses steady, This world is a world of lies, Here's a toast to the dead already, And here's to the next man to die." -hymn of the "Double Reds"

Lt Cols aren't paid to take on tanks singlehandedly nor are they supposed to. If they are in such a position they've done something wrong or somethings gone badly wrong. Sounds half Bäked to me hehe. If they consistently make a habit of it then one wonders what the hell they are up to. By all means give them a medal or a badge but demote them to a position where foolhardy acts of courage aren't endangering their units efficiency by depriving it of a commander. Don't worry soon everyone will be calling themselves Dr this, Prof that, just tack a few years onto the undergrad degree and your away. I thought bachelor of dental science (BDS) means you're a bachelor or somefink? I don't seem to recall dentists terming themselves Dr in the past, seems like some recent initiative to raise the standing of the profession or somefink? What happens if your a dentist and you do a higher degree, are you a Dr Dr dentist? Anyway having a few dentist mates I can safely say that there is not much difference between accountants and dentists as they both spend a lot of time counting money 'cept for the dentists it's their own. Yours Supreme Highness Fox ------------------ "Stand to your glasses steady, This world is a world of lies, Here's a toast to the dead already, And here's to the next man to die." -hymn of the "Double Reds" [This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 04-05-2001).]

Surely they weren't still using Matildas in 1943 were they? They were OK in their day but cripes, the thing only had a 2pdr. I thought they phased them out in N Africa in 1942 and sent most of the to the Far East. It would have been positive cruelty to make someone fight in one in 1943. Sorry about the OT but it was more interesting than this oft discussed topic ------------------ "Stand to your glasses steady, This world is a world of lies, Here's a toast to the dead already, And here's to the next man to die." -hymn of the "Double Reds"

OK, No worries.

Any chance of posting the axis setup for TDG02 Scout?

Try 18 Platoon by Sydney Jary, a good read. My reading concurs with Michael that Commonwealth sections used overwatch with the Bren group. Sometimes a platoon commander would use all his Bren groups as one fire support group and maneuver with his rifle groups. Whenever these discussions of Marshall's findings crop up I am always reminded of the comments of an Australian Plt commander in New Guinea who said the most valuable soldier in his platoon wouldn't shoot even in self-defense:"..yet the most effective forward scout I knew was a man who picked himself for the role and came from suburban Sydney. This remarkable 19-year-old militiaman positioned us right time and time again. And, strangest of all, he would not -could not- fire a shot to defend himself even when, as happened once or twice, his very life seemed to depend on it." I like this quote too: "As hard to pick who'll be a good man under fire as it is to pick a bloody winner on a racecourse" ------------------ "Stand to your glasses steady, This world is a world of lies, Here's a toast to the dead already, And here's to the next man to die." -hymn of the "Double Reds"

Jeff, You seem incapable of discussing something you have written without becoming excessively defensive about it. As if that were not enough rationale you apparently have decided that I am argueing some specific point of view diametrically opposite to your own. Unfortunately while it may be more comfortable for you to take that viewpoint it is not the case. From your interpretation of what I have written I can only assume that you are insensitive to the nuances of language either by choice or some other reason. Yes it is far-fetched. What a giant leap of supposition it is to assume that "quite different" means "therefore...irrelevant". No need to say it again, I already did. No. Mmm.. an interesting viewpoint, very revealing. Am I doing either of those things? What suppositions am I making? You suppose all to much. Yes, that's my point. I am glad you are convinced. As for myself I try not to take sides. ------------------ "Stand to your glasses steady, This world is a world of lies, Here's a toast to the dead already, And here's to the next man to die." -hymn of the "Double Reds"

Which refers to North Africa which is a quite different situation with regards to typical vehicles, gun calibre and ammunition. The importance of the additional bursting charge to disabling the vehicle following penetration may be greater in these circumstances. It would be better that we left the maths out of this, thankfully you didn't go there, in all likelyhood it would only prove the intuitively obvious. To quote one of rexford's favourite sources: "In principle, penetrating shell with a bursting charge should have better behind-armour effect than solid shot, but whether this matters in calibres above about 50mm seems highly questionable." That is of course sufficient to render the tank or it's crew out of the game so to speak, brewing up being necessary only to render the tank unrecoverable. I am perfectly cogniscant of the basis of discussion in this thread, I merely wanted to point out that the British rationale included acknowledgement that at larger calibres later in the war the bursting charge was most likely 'overkill' and that getting the round in was more important. OK let's elaborate. Referring to your original post. Later you wrote this: So is the difference between the MkIV and the Panther/Tiger due to the differences in the vehicles? Are the differences between the Sherman and the MkIV due to differences in the vehicle or the ammunition? Are you suggesting the MkIV figure would have been lower if the Brits had used APCBCHE instead of APCBC? Could this data be skewed in anyway by the positioning of the hits on the respective vehicle types? Obviously I am confused since I thought you were contending that these figures meant something with regard to ammunition and the chance of 'brewing-up' when in fact we're talking about three totally different vehicles and an unknown number of different round types plus a number of other sources of variation.

Jeff Duquette wrote Actually the US ammunition was APCBCHE and the British ammo was APCBC. I disagree with your premise regarding the relative internal effects of an AP shot with a HE filler vs a solid shot. As pointed out above the Brits did dispense with the HE filler for smaller calibre APCBC due to concerns regarding spaced German armour. However, they persisted with this long after the spaced armour was off the scene because their testing showed that (A) For calibres of around 50mm and above the catastrophic internal damage caused by a penetration was quite sufficient without the HE filler and ( there was a marginal improvement in penetration. I beleive that the US also eventually dispensed with the HE filler, is that correct. You cite the 1.9(Sherman) vs 3.2 (MkV&VI)figure from your source (very interesting I might add) in support yet you ignore the 1.9 vs 1.5 (MkIV) which doesn't at all support your premise. Like gunneroz I am suspicious of the wet stowage issue and the ammunition flammability problems. It doesn't coincide with my reading of British experience. After having been initially supplied with diesel Shermans they deplored the petrol versions since anecdotally they found them less reliable and prone to engine fires. There's somefink funny going on there and the chain of cause and effect isn't all that clear. Some tanks are clearly more survivable than others. The Churchill for example seems to have been better in this regard. ------------------ "Stand to your glasses steady, This world is a world of lies, Here's a toast to the dead already, And here's to the next man to die." -hymn of the "Double Reds"

Whingeing poms and Maximarse, wot a thread! ------------------ "Stand to your glasses steady, This world is a world of lies, Here's a toast to the dead already, And here's to the next man to die." -hymn of the "Double Reds"